SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. versus MARE SHIPPING INC.

Citation: [2011] 9 S.C.R. 70 · Decided: 13-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ALTAMAS KABIR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 9 S.C.R. 70 
SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. 
v. 
MARE SHIPPING INC. 
(Special Leave Petition (C) No. 19461 of 2006) 
JULY 13, 2011 
[ALTAMAS KABIR AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Shipping: Demurrage charges on account of delay in 
discharge of cargo - Claim for - Charter Party providing for 
C carriage of crude oil from Ras Sukheir to a safe port on the 
Indian coastline - No specific port in the Indian coastline 
mentioned in the Charter Party - Charterers given choice of 
nominating port for discharge of the cargo - After vessel left 
Ras Sukheir, intimation given by Charterers for discharge of 
o the cargo at the SBM at Port Vadinar -
Vessel reached Port 
Vadinar on 15. 12. 1999 and Master of vessel tendered Notice 
of Readiness (NOR) - However, vessel was not so equipped 
and could not be moored at the SBM - The Addendum to 
Charter Party drawn up between Charterer and owner of vessel 
E containing conditions that vessel would be diverted from 
Vadinar to Mumbai for discharge and all extra cost/ 
demurrage charges would be borne by Charterer - Thereafter 
vessel diverted to Mumbai and completed discharge - Claim 
for demurrage charges made by owner of vessel - Dispute 
arose and arbitration clause contained in Charter party 
F invoked - Arbitral Tribunal allowed the claim of owner of 
vessel - High Court upheld the order of the Arbitral Tribunal 
- On appeal, held: In giving Notice of Readiness upon arrival 
at the customary anchorage at Vadinar, the Master of the 
Vessel duly complied with the conditions of the Charter Party 
G - The responsibility for the failure of the ship to moor at the 
SBM in Vadinar lay squarely on the Charterers and the 
receiver as they had nominated the SBM for the safe mooring 
of the vessel -It cannot also be said that the owners of the 
H 
70 
SHIPPING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. v. MARE 
71 
SHIPPING INC. 
vessel contributed in any way to such failure since the 
A 
equipment on board the vessel were made known to the 
Charterers when the Charter Party was signed - The terms 
of the Charter Party were agreed upon by the parties with their 
eyes wide open - Even after the vessel was denied mooring 
at the SBM for safety reasons, no steps were taken by the 
B 
Charterers to either arrange for an alternate safe berthing in 
Vadinar or to give instructions as to where the cargo was to 
be discharged - Even the subsequent deviation of the vessel 
from Vadinar to Mumbai was not on account of any /aches 
on the part of the owners of the vessel - Read with the Charter c 
Party, the Addendum made it abundantly clear that the 
Charterers had accepted the responsibility for the failure of 
the vessel to discharge her cargo at Vadinar and had agreed 
to bear.cal/ the expenses for the delay in diversion of the vessel 
from Vadinar to Mumbai, including the time spent at Vadinar 0 
port and the expenses incurred towards pilotage, tugs and 
other port expenses - Apart from that the Charter Party 
specifically provided that extra expenses incurred on account 
of any change in loading or discharging ports, has to be paid 
by the Charterers, and any time thereby lost to the vessel 
shall count as used lay time - There was no reason to interfere 
E 
with the award of the Arbitral Tribunal - Arbitration. 
On 9.11.1999, the petitioner-Charterers and the 
respondent-owner entered into a Charter Party in respect 
of the respondent's vessel for carriage of 8150 ·metric 
F 
tones of crude oil from the Egyptian Red Sea port of Ras 
Sukheir to one/two safe anchorage/lighterage points/ 
SBMs/one/two safe port(s) one/two safe berth(s) 
anywhere in India. The vessel was described in the 
Charter party as being fitted with "AK Tongue Type Bow G 
i 
Chain Stopper of min SWL 2000 Mts." The Charter Party 
contained arbitration clause .. 
On 19.11.1999, the vessel arrived at Ras Sukheir at 
4.00 a.m. and tendered Notice of Readiness (NOR). The 
loading commenced at 10 p.m., on 20.11.1999 and was 
H 
72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011J 9 S.C.R. 
A completed by 3.15 p.m. on 21.11.1999. The total lay time 
provided for loading and discharge of cargo was 72 
running hours. Out of the said lay time hours, the lay 
time used at Ras Sukheir was 37 hours and 30 minutes. 
On account of a mishap involving the vessel's anchor 
B and the submarine pipe-lines, the vessel was delayed at 
Ras Sukheir for fourteen days and could leave the port 
only on 4.12.1999. On 6.12.1999 while the vessel was 
sailing, the respondents-owners

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.